Thread: Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: NOT a Bright Idea!

Originally Posted by PatrickT

When an alternative to incandescent bulbs is cost effective and effective in use then the government will not have to force people to buy them. It's hard to believe but the government never forced anyone to buy color televisions, gasoline cars, or incandescent lightbulbs. Now they want to force us to switch to digital television, abandon gasoline cars, and change lightbulbs. Forcing gives them an erection and boosts their insider trading profits but it's not how things should be done. I wouldn't hesitate to buy an LED bulb that would fit my light fixtures, allow me to read, and was cost effective.

How about a food example:
Long before Her Honor Bloomberg thought to outlaw soda, McDonalds started changing their menu to add more healthy choices like salad, as well as adding (during a recession) quality coffee at half the price of Starbucks.

Those changes for the better have allowed McD's to thrive during bad economic times, and it wasn't regulation. It was them responding well to changes in the market.

Should the government now force Burger King to have more salads? No. Good ideas should thrive, and bad ideas, like creepy Burger King guy, die on the vine.

A New York Times panel looked at 21 alternatives to incandescents and found nearly all of the compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) disgusting. But they did like some of the LED and halogen choices.

In an attempt to determine whether energy-efficient lighting is as awful as many believe it to be, or whether some energy-efficient bulbs might cast an appealing light on a bedside table or a living room wall, The New York Times asked several manufacturers to provide samples of their products. The bulbs had to work in a screw-in base and be appropriate for indoor use, and manufacturers were asked to choose models they believed were closest in light and color to traditional incandescents.

Once the bulbs were collected - 21, including 14 compact fluorescents - a panel of staff members at The Times was asked to judge the quality of the lights. Identical ceramic table lamps with plain white shades were placed at the ends of a long table, one with a traditional 60-watt incandescent bulb for comparison.

The first compact fluorescent tested, an n:vision Soft White manufactured by TCP for The Home Depot, evoked a collective groan. Although some liked its brightness and whiteness and the way its outer shell hid the coil and made it look more like a traditional incandescent bulb, others dismissed it as harsh, comparing it to hospital lighting.

Sylvania's Bright White Designers Choice was even less popular. Panelists decried the color as sickly and gluelike As other compact fluorescents were tried, the complaints grew louder. G.E.'s Energy Smart Daylight 15-watt bulb looked "icky frigid blue." Sylvania's Micro-Mini evoked a rainy day. One tester said the MiniBulb from MaxLite "makes me queasy."

The slight buzzing emitted by many of the compact fluorescents, including G.E. Energy Smart bulbs, Sylvania's Designers Choice, and TCP's Spring Light/Soft White, irritated panelists, as did the time it took for some bulbs to light and the flickering that sometimes ensued once they did.

Some judges were enthusiastic about a dimmable compact fluorescent, the G.E. Energy Smart Dimmable, given that such bulbs have, until recently, been hard to find. But rather than moving smoothly from dark to light, as incandescents and halogens do, it functioned more like a bulb with three settings: high, low and off.

Another object of excitement was the Pharox bulb (upscalelighting.com) from Lemnis Lighting, which uses a light-emitting diode, or L.E.D. This technology, which works by illuminating a semiconductor chip, is more efficient than compact fluorescent lighting. But because L.E.D.'s emit directional rather than diffuse light, they are typically implanted in flat surfaces like walls or light panels.

Not all the bulbs were met with negativity. Panelists favored the light cast by halogen bulbs (including the Daylight Plus and the BT15 from Sylvania, and G.E.'s Edison 60), which last twice as long as incandescents.

Just my experience. Halogen. dangerous. extremely hot, the faces can and do fall off the bulb and fall on children or adults causing painful burns and if not that then they break when they hit the counter or the floor leaving glass all over the place. They are also said to be dangerous with NO face...says the package. They hurt your eyes and they are too hot to work unde.

LED's: pretty light, great for decorating but they are not dependable. And just as a side note, some towns/cities replaced their incandescents in the stop lights with LED's and the snow doesn't melt. Drivers could not read or mis-read the signals and accidents resulted. Failure to follow thru by the brainiacs that decided it was a good idea to replace.

New research funded by the National Science Foundation has scientists warning consumers about the potentially harmful effects energy-saving CFL light bulbs can have on skin.

The warning comes based on a study conducted by Stony Brook University and New York State Stem Cell Science — published in the June issue of Photochemistry and Photobiology — which looked at whether and how the invisible UV rays CFL bulbs emit affect the skin.

Based on the research, scientists concluded that CFL light bulbs can be harmful to healthy skin cells.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said lead researcher Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stony Brook University, in New York, in a statement. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.”

According to Rafailovich, with or without TiO2 (a chemical found in sunblock), incandescent bulbs of the same light intensity had zero effects on healthy skin.

The scientists found that cracks in the CFL bulbs phosphor coatings yielded significant levels of UVC and UVA in all of the bulbs — purchased in different locations across two counties — they examined.

With high levels of ultraviolet radiation present, the researchers delved into how the exposure affected the skin. According to the findings, skin damage from exposure to CFLs was consistent with harm caused by ultraviolet radiation.

The warning comes based on a study conducted by Stony Brook University and New York State Stem Cell Science — published in the June issue of Photochemistry and Photobiology — which looked at whether and how the invisible UV rays CFL bulbs emit affect the skin.

Based on the research, scientists concluded that CFL light bulbs can be harmful to healthy skin cells.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said lead researcher Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stony Brook University, in New York, in a statement. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.”

According to Rafailovich, with or without TiO2 (a chemical found in sunblock), incandescent bulbs of the same light intensity had zero effects on healthy skin.

The scientists found that cracks in the CFL bulbs phosphor coatings yielded significant levels of UVC and UVA in all of the bulbs — purchased in different locations across two counties — they examined.

With high levels of ultraviolet radiation present, the researchers delved into how the exposure affected the skin. According to the findings, skin damage from exposure to CFLs was consistent with harm caused by ultraviolet radiation.

“Despite their large energy savings, consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs,” said Rafailovich. “Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.”

Originally Posted by MisLed

LED's: pretty light, great for decorating but they are not dependable. And just as a side note, some towns/cities replaced their incandescents in the stop lights with LED's and the snow doesn't melt. Drivers could not read or mis-read the signals and accidents resulted. Failure to follow thru by the brainiacs that decided it was a good idea to replace.

Actually I like the LED replacements they have put in traffic lights. The colors are much brighter and more brilliant, due to the nature of LED light (it is monochromatic and tends to be much more directional). This is especially true for producing green light. Passing full spectrum light through a filter is not a very good way of producing a pure color. Like I have been saying, LED lights are good or appropriate for some applications, but not others.

And just to emphasise the obvious again so there is not confusion, CFL's are completely different than LED, though both are considered "energy saving" alternatives to conventional incandescent light bulbs.

quotes from another forum from people unhappy with CFL's

As I have reached age 60, I find I need brighter light and therein lies the problem.

All of my life I've been accustomed to 100 watt bulbs being 100 watts bright, and staying that way until they decided to die.

I have placed CFL's throughout my home with the exception of 2 bathrooms, and find they just don't cut it for me. Yes, I'm pleased with the savings on the electric bill, but these bulbs work no differently than any other fluorescent bulbs-they dim over a period of time.

Will anyone get 7 years out of these bulbs as they claim? Doubtful, but if they do, they'll need an accompanying flashlight to guide them through the house.

[CFL's are more] expensive. Yeah, I was fooled into believing that this would be a worthwhile investment. That I'd get 7 years out of them. Right. Like I said, they're useless as they start to dim, which doesn't take very long, meaning they have to be replaced more frequently just to sustain the original level of brightness. In the long run, the electricity bill savings is eaten up by the necessity to frequently replace these bulbs.

Our government has decided the need to phase-out my beloved incandescent bulbs. This means those incandescent bulb-lovers will either have to stockpile or pay exhorbitant prices from other hoarders when they're no longer readily available.

I replaced all of the outlawed bulbs in our house about 2 years ago. Since then I would say that almost half of the new wonder bulbs have faded out to zero and had to be replaced, certainly no where near the 7 years they claim. I hate them. In the morning the first thing I do before I start my coffee is turn on the light over the table so that when the coffee is ready (8 mins) the light will be bright enough to read the paper. So that means I'm using the light longer than I did the [energy efficient] bulbs.

Another stupid, poorly thought out law that we have allowed our meddling politicians to impose on us. Illumination without representation.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

New research funded by the National Science Foundation has scientists warning consumers about the potentially harmful effects energy-saving CFL light bulbs can have on skin.

The warning comes based on a study conducted by Stony Brook University and New York State Stem Cell Science — published in the June issue of Photochemistry and Photobiology — which looked at whether and how the invisible UV rays CFL bulbs emit affect the skin.

.”

More on that, and on similar preceding studies,
also on the UV radiation involved, on the effects of it, and spectral light studies
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/07/...radiation.html

Mercatus_Consumer_Study_Bulb_Image_585_325.jpg

New, a comprehensive University Study from Virginia:
Consumers are not Irrational, and Environmental Benefits are "Negligible", from light bulb regulations etc
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/08/...lambasted.html

Originally Posted by dudeman

A person that wants less of a carbon footprint should be less of a consumer as opposed to mandating nonsense policies upon others. Much like the concept of rich people sponsoring the concept of paying more taxes. A person can ELECT to pay more taxes voluntarily. A government mandate isn't necessary unless the WAD wants others to foot the bill.

The incandescent bulb and the compact fluorescent will be phased out by 2020.